Revision against sec 204 cr.p.c.
Dineshwar Singh Kaushik
(Querist) 03 December 2010
This query is : Resolved
A Judicial Magistrate after inquiry u/s 202cr.p.c.issued summons u/s 204 of cr.p.c. Thereafter the accused persons appeared in the court and got bail.After appearing in trial court accused persons filed revision against order of Magistrate u/s204 ,the Sessions Judge at the time of admission raised objection that after appearance on summons this revision is not maintainable because the order u/s204 has exhausted and is no more operative.
In my view the objection of Sessions Judge is correct .
What is yours view please share your with me and if any decision is there then please share it also with me (both for & against).
Arvind Singh Chauhan
(Expert) 03 December 2010
I think Session court's view is not correct, some times accused can't prepare himself for revision in time and he has to appear before lower court. Revision against may be within the period of limitation any stage of trial. After all he would have denied the allegation in his bail application. Then how his right of revision is surrendered.
The same is revision against the charge. In lower court charge is framed and accused signs on the charge and denies with charge, then he applies for revision.
Appearance before the lower court does not bar the revision.
Devajyoti Barman
(Expert) 03 December 2010
No. The accused only complied with the direction of the court by makin appearance. That does not meant that he is waiving his right to challenge the merit of the order issuing the process. The accused person can rightfully challenge the summoning order even after appearing in the trial court.
Guest
(Expert) 03 December 2010
Agree with experts.
s.subramanian
(Expert) 04 December 2010
I disagree. The revision now questions the cognisance taken by the magistrate which cannot be done under Sec.397 before the Sessions Court. If the accused is aggrieved he has to invoke Sec.482 CR.P.C. and the High Court alone has inherent powers to the same. Since taking cognisance is an interlocutory order,no revision lies against the same. If the cognisance has been taken on insufficient materials,it can be questioned under SEc.482 and quashed.Perusal of Adalat Prasad's case and the judgment of the Supreme Court on this point will enlighten you more.
Advocate. Arunagiri
(Expert) 04 December 2010
As he appeared before the magistrate, he has no case against the order u/s 204 cr.p.c. If the accused is challenging the entire case, he can file a discharge petition u/s 245 cr.p.c.
AMAR RANU
(Expert) 04 December 2010
How a discharge application is maintainable in a summon case?
It is a summon case not a warrant case.
Where is provision in Cr.P.C.?
Under which provision of law,any accused can be discharged in a summon case?
Amar Ranu
Guest
(Expert) 04 December 2010
Dear Mr Amar.... how you reached on this conclusion that procedings ynder sections 200-204 CR.P.C only in summons cases..... it also in warrant cases too....
n i disagree with Mr Subramanyam ji too.... the term 'interlocutory order' in Section 397(2) has been used in a restricted sense and not in any broad or artistic sense. It merely denotes orders of a purely interim or temporary nature which do not decide or touch the important rights or the liabilities of the parties. Any order which substantially affects the right of the accused, or decides certain rights of the parties cannot be said to be an interlocutory order so as to bar a revision to the High Court against that order, because that would be the very object which formed the basis for insertion of this particular provision in Section 397. The orders which affect or adjudicate the rights of the accused or a particular aspect of the trial cannot be said to be interlocutory order so as to be outside the purview of the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court.
In the case of Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande v. Uttam, 1999 (2) PLJR 5 SC, the Apex Court has taken similar view and has held that interlocutory order is an order of purely interim or temporary nature which does not decide or adjudicate the important rights or liabilities of the parties. The order of the Magistrate directing issuance of process is not interlocutory, it is intermediate or quasi final and the Sessions Judge has jurisdiction to interfere with it.
Thus, on consideration, as discussed above, it can safely be said that the order taking cognizance and issuance of processes is not an interlocutory order and revision against the said order is maintainable.
Advocate. Arunagiri
(Expert) 05 December 2010
As per Chapter XIX of Cr.P.C. there are two types of cases.
1. Cases instituted on a police report.
2. Cases instituted other wise on a police report.
If case is instituted by police, the accused can file a discharge petition u/s 227 or 239 before the framing of charges. He can not be discharged after the framing of charges.
If the case is instituted by a private party the accused can be discharged u/s 245, at any time before and after framing of charges. This applies to summons and warrant cases.
Arun Kumar Bhagat
(Expert) 05 December 2010
I agree with Mr.S.Subramanian. Only option is Quashing u/s 482 Cr.P.Code.
Guest
(Expert) 05 December 2010
its not an interlocutory order. Revision can be filed......
AMAR RANU
(Expert) 21 December 2010
Dear Mr.Ajitab,
I draw your kind attention to three judge SC judgement in the matter of Adalatprashad,which has created havoc for all innocent accused in private criminal summon cases.
In the said judgement,three SC judges have refused to clarify as to process is a interlocatory order or not.But surprisingly,they have settled law that process can not be recalled and hence,discharge application has no significance and since all trial courts are rejecting dischare applications in summon cases by relying on the said judgement.
You are requested to kindly go through the aforesaid judgement and revert back here to settle this issue once for al in the interest of legal fraternity.
